Interesting discussion. I will stick my head above the parapet and confirm it was me who made the original statement to Mouse040.
Yes I blame you completely for making me think , don't do it again
Foraging / surviving from the land
- Thread starter Mouse040
- Start date
Thanks for sharing that there's a great bit of reading on the law
hope no one minds me sharing I don't take any credit for this but find it relevant to the discussion WCA
The WCA is a complex piece of legislation, which touches upon common law rights in certain areas. I will take two examples – plant gathering and animal hunting/ gathering. In general a landowner owns all trees and plants growing upon his or her plot. An owner has the right to sever such objects from the land (and to sell the same), but WCA intervenes in the case of certain protected wild plants. In short if a plant species is protected under WCA, no one can pick, destroy or sell it (including the landowner) without committing an offence. If a species does not enjoy WCA protection what about the stranger who wants to take plants? An act of this nature would ordinarily be theft, but an exception in the Theft Act states that in the case of mushrooms or plants growing wild on land, a person may take away foliage, fruit or parts of the plant without committing an offence – unless it is done with the intention of selling them, or for other reward.
Although there is still some argument in law over what is a plant “growing wild”, put simply, those plants which arc obviously commercially grown cannot be taken (hence scrumping is theft.) whilst free-growing blackberry plants cannot have their fruits stolen unless for re-sale. It is worth noting though, that the above exception only protects the person who takes only part of a plant, if all the plant is taken away an act of theft arises, as against a landowner.
In the above scenario, though, the stranger still commits trespass, which is actionable in law. CROW has anticipated one potential problem by making it clear that any member of the public who enters access land must not pick any plant or part of one -irrespective of the Theft Act exception I have touched on. Whether that stipulation helps endear CROW to landowners remains to be seen.
The law of property in animals is complex, but as a general principle animals divide into ‘domestic’ and “wild’. Domestic animals are chattels and acts of theft and criminal damage can apply to this class of creature. As for wild animals, (I avoid ‘game’ for the purpose of this article) there is no absolute property in such creatures that are living, but there can exist various classes of qualified property rights. For example, a landowner who retains hunting rights on his own land has a qualified property in wild animals whilst they reside there – hence such owners often grant shooting rights to third parties.
Once a wild animal is killed (or found dead) there is an absolute property in the creature that rests in the landowner, or the user of any shooting or sporting rights – who can maintain a claim against any third party, such as a trespasser onto land. This is particularly so if a trespasser intends to sell on wild animals, such as rabbits. The situation is somewhat complicated where wild animals are found in the road – in practise no highway authority is likely to pursue anyone who picks up dead rabbit, for example – but note the Deer Act 1991 creates various offences relating to deer, and certainly collecting carcases for sale as venison is not permitted without licence.
Overlaying all these general principles though, are the statutes – not just CROW and WCA but others such as the Deer Act already referred to. These acts protect classes of animals by making it a criminal offence to kill, collect or maim with the use of snares or traps. Although in yesteryear the best birdwatchers learnt about their subject through egg collecting, post WCA, those days are over. All wild birds are now protected (subject to exceptions) and indeed, the mere possession, without authority of any species which is protected gives rise to an offence – even if that species is picked up already dead, from the road.
Finally, I am conscious of the fact that behind every statement in this article lies a mass of exception, legal uncertainty and no doubt potential for dispute. Perhaps to a communality of legal complexity do the separate states of town and country truly emerge.
LAW AND COUNTRY CODE (OF HONOUR)
What of wild root and tuber plants e.g. wild carrot, wild parsnip, dandelion, burdock, pignut, etc.?
If the underground portion is harvested then strictly speaking the part of the plant that grows above ground should be left on site and not taken away. By doing this the forager is demonstrating that his or her intention is not to permanently deprive the landowner of the goods. However, they may still leave themselves open to a charge of criminal damage, if permission from the landowner is not first sought. It is also unsightly.
On land which has been opened up under CROW rights the harvesting of any wild plant parts is forbidden.
There are national restrictions that apply to the new access rights at all times. CROW excludes any rights to the following; to ride a horse or bicycle, or drive a vehicle; take part in organised games or commercial activities; bathe in non-tidal water, or use boats there; hunt, fish or collect anything from the area including rocks or plants; camp or light fires.
In addition further local restrictions may be Imposed on the new rights where deemed necessary.
The above national restrictions and local restriction powers only apply to the land newly opened up to access under the CROW scheme. They do not affect what people already do: by local tradition or tolerance; with express permission; on public rights of way such as footpaths and bridleways; or under any other existing rights or arrangements that apply locally.
That’s the law but what of respect?
The following is a quote from an old holy Wintu Native American woman, that sets the benchmark—she was contrasting the behaviour of her people with that of the white man; “When we Indians kill meat, we eat it all up. When we dig roots we make little holes. When we build houses we make little holes. When we burn grass for a grasshoppers, we don’t ruin things. We shake down acorns and pinenuts. We don’t chop down trees. We only use dead wood.”
Last edited:
"It's a misconception that we as an island could not sustain our own country if left to fend for ourselves"
This statement does not ride well with the fact that even under intensive agricultural practice, the UK imports some 40% of the food its inhabitants consume. Foraging has a far, far lower yield than agriculture. Even the comparatively well developed agricultural techniques of the Elizabethan times could only sustain a population of about 5 million. Hunter gatherers with zero agriculture - the UK could maybe support a population of about 100,000
This statement does not ride well with the fact that even under intensive agricultural practice, the UK imports some 40% of the food its inhabitants consume. Foraging has a far, far lower yield than agriculture. Even the comparatively well developed agricultural techniques of the Elizabethan times could only sustain a population of about 5 million. Hunter gatherers with zero agriculture - the UK could maybe support a population of about 100,000
We also export our food to the value of £244.5billion pounds last year and I did not say we could sustain ourselves by foraging that of course is not viable and as I also said that's not what this thread was about
I would be curious to see your sources for this claim. I do not think the UK could support its population, at least not for the long term.
If every person and family were to suddenly know all they needed to know about turning a seed into a crop year on year, knew how to rotate their crops, what to grow in what kind of soil etc. etc. And if every spare bit of suburbia or flat piece of city roof was turned into space for raised box gardens or place for a goat or pig to be tethered we might get by for a while, but only a while.
I am going to write a thread if I can as I'm no academic but obviously it would be purely theoretical as there is no way of proving my opinion and every thread I seem to get involved in turns to an argument
or maybe that's just me Here's a taster
The average adult male requires about 2100 calories per day, which is roughly 766,000 calories per year. Multiplied times 60 million people (we can even round up and assume that everyone eats like an adult male) comes to 45,530,100,000,000 calories per year.
That sounds like a lot, but you can get an awful lot of nutrition out of the ground if you plant the right crops. An acre of wheat is about 6.4 million calories. An acre of potatoes is 17.8 million. That means the UK would need 711,000 acres of wheat to feed itself, or 256,000 acres of potatoes.
Britain has about 60 million acres of farmland. If it used its land to get the HIGHEST possible calorie yield, it could feed TWICE the entire world's population.
Simples .
Paul Kirtley's take on the subject
http://paulkirtley.co.uk/2013/the-d...ff-the-land-bushcraft-show-2013-presentation/
http://paulkirtley.co.uk/2013/the-d...ff-the-land-bushcraft-show-2013-presentation/
Great talk and sort off the same mindset as me
Ok thetillerman71 silver weed is going on the list I bow to superior knowledge and I presume this was the talk Elen sentier had mentioned
"We also export our food to the value of £244.5billion pounds last year"
Please cite source, as this figure does not correspond to the UK government stats
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...achment_data/file/208436/auk-2012-25jun13.pdf
Interesting reading.
ows total farm income of 4.7 billion (KP), Total food and drink exports of 18.2 billion ( of which 4.4 billion is Scotch WHiskey - showing that a high proportion of export value was for highly processed foods). F&D imoorts were 37.8 billion, of which a high proportion were unprocessed foods e.g. fruit and veg.
Please cite source, as this figure does not correspond to the UK government stats
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...achment_data/file/208436/auk-2012-25jun13.pdf
Interesting reading.
ows total farm income of 4.7 billion (KP), Total food and drink exports of 18.2 billion ( of which 4.4 billion is Scotch WHiskey - showing that a high proportion of export value was for highly processed foods). F&D imoorts were 37.8 billion, of which a high proportion were unprocessed foods e.g. fruit and veg.
Last edited:
"Britain has about 60 million acres of farmland"
No it doesn't. The report I cited earlier states 18348 hectares (about 45K acres) of which 9725 is grassland (e,g, Snowdonia and the Munroes - where it is extremely difficult to even attempt arable crops.
BTW we are moving a long way from foraging (hunter gathering) which many sources suggest needs ca. 65 acres per person to be sustainable
No it doesn't. The report I cited earlier states 18348 hectares (about 45K acres) of which 9725 is grassland (e,g, Snowdonia and the Munroes - where it is extremely difficult to even attempt arable crops.
BTW we are moving a long way from foraging (hunter gathering) which many sources suggest needs ca. 65 acres per person to be sustainable
A quick comment upon the relative value of import/export of food in the UK, I believe that we are pretty much capable of being self-sustaining in every major agricultural product that we actually produce, with the exception of pork. The reason that we import so much of our basic, un-processed food is economic rather than agricultural. UK farmers have to pay themselves a lot more to achieve a living wage, than farmers operating in the developing world, where a lot of staples now come from, and agricultural labour is also cheaper in countries without agricultural wages boards or unionised workforces. Also raw foodstuffs are a primary industry without an economic multiplier so as I understand it, margins are low. Therefore, I guess that the theory of comparative advantage dictates that countries with vast land resources that can be organised at plantation scales and a low-pay labour force, should produce food, and in return we should produce, err, lawyers, cyclonic vacuum cleaners, and, um, Simon Cowell... uppy_dog Simple economics, like I said...
uppy_dog Simple economics, like I said...
But as someone said, the agricultural capacity of the country has little bearing on the ability to sustain the populace by foraging. It's basically impossible. Even if we were to stop all agriculture and instantly return the countryside to some hypothetical unsullied state, I reckon you could sustain a few thousand people across the country at best.
There are a lot of figures out there and this argument is indeed only theoretical
Take a look at this one
www.fwi.co.uk/.../defra-doesn39t-know-area-of-england39s-farml...
GS - intuitively,one might expect this. However, the data in the report show that the vast majority by value come from the UK's western EU partners, Netherlands, France, Spain, Germany, Ireland and Italy followed by the USA and the rest way behind. The only exceptions seem to be in fresh fruit, coffee and tea, which come from further afield.
We can also ponder at the effects of "free trade" the UK imports almost the same tonnage as it exports of lamb and mutton
We can also ponder at the effects of "free trade" the UK imports almost the same tonnage as it exports of lamb and mutton
Exactly why this argument will never be won by either side as I cannot either accept defeat or totally stand by my own argument as the facts are probably not available as it has to be done to prove either side as right and then we could argue the socialising effects upon the uk being self sufficient as I'm sure in this day and age the population would more than likely kill each other in the face of collectively working for the greater good
Don't suppose you have an opinion on the original point this thread was created to express ,which was is it possible for a single person to sustain themselves by foraging in this day and age ,as the thread has gone way off track
Elen Sentier
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I know a few people who both have and do support themselves entirely by living off the land. They are very skilled and able. I am not equipped to be of their number ... but I wish I was.
behind every creative woman there's usually a very talented cat ...
behind every creative woman there's usually a very talented cat ...
Read this on another site and found it fascinating
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ontact-Unaware-of-World-War-II-188843001.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ontact-Unaware-of-World-War-II-188843001.html
No it doesn't
The whole of the United Kingdom (which is larger than Britain) is less than 60 million acres. A considerable portion of this is cities, lakes, mountain, moorland, houses etc.
Sorry - I see PDA already covers this - you seem to be confusing the UK and Britain - different land masses. In addition land, farm land and arable land are very different things.
